Tuesday, June 16, 2015

The successes and failings of India's bureaucracy

The Indian states’
struggles with getting stuff done are well documented. Even when programs are
apparently well designed, they generally stumble at implementation. This
implementation deficit has become a reflection of weak state capability.

This malaise
afflicts government agencies at all levels and across states in varying
degrees. It is as much applicable to service delivery with welfare programs as
it is to the large-scale regulatory failures and resultant corruption scandals
that dominate headline news.

So how it is that
Indian bureaucracy delivers spectacularly with programs like Pulse Polio,
elections, and Kumbh Mela? What explains the handful of outstanding examples of
successes with improving maternal and child health outcomes, or women’s
empowerment, or increasing access to sanitation that occasionally come from
various corners of India? There are two possible answers.

One, and relevant
to the first question, is that our state is exceptional at doing things that have
short duration and clearly defined destination. A common thread that goes
through all these activities is meticulous planning which maps functionaries to
task and time, simple and clearly defined monitoring goals, rigorous supervision,
and insulation from political influence. This is generally achieved through a
massive mobilization of the entire local administration, often augmented with
external manpower. It helps that the short duration of these activities allows
for such cross-departmental mobilization. All this is underpinned by a strong
political and bureaucratic commitment at the highest levels to achieve the
objective.

The success with
these activities stand in stark contrast to the egregious failure with
implementation of regular government programs in the same area by the same
personnel. It shines light on the sources of their implementation failure. An
apolitical, adequately staffed and appropriately trained bureaucracy, when
monitored rigorously gets things done. It is no surprise that all these
ingredients are deficient in regular administration of government programs.

The other examples
of success are, most often, a result of individual initiative. A few fiercely
committed officers bring great passion and effort into planning and implementing
programs. Their energy and leadership masks the chronic deficiencies in state
capability and results in the positive deviance.

There are a few
features that inform the actions of all such successful officials. They make detailed
plans, with clearly defined intermediate milestones and final outcomes with
timelines, all of which can be monitored.

They rely on some
improvised information reporting system to rigorously monitor compliance. Some
of the more tech-savvy among them use computer applications for internet-based
reporting. Others rely on brute force reviews, done with unfailing regularity. These
reviews are generally done personally at a painstaking level of granularity, to
identify weaknesses and poor performers, which are then followed-up and addressed.
It is no accident that their reporting systems are generally at variance from
the ineffectual routine state or nation-wide reporting systems for the same
program or activity.

Another prong of their
monitoring is intensive field inspections, most often done randomly and without
intimation so as to validate the information from the aforementioned reports.
Such personal inspections, which are often followed up with strong and certain
disciplinary action on errant officials, are a strong deterrent against
slacking. But given the large geographical jurisdictions, such personal
inspections take up a disproportionately large amount of time and effort, and
involve unfavorable work trade-offs.

A handful of motivated
and sincere sub-ordinates are co-opted as internal champions in these efforts. In
a few cases, committed local non-profits become important partners. The smarter
among them keep open active feedback channels - through inspections and
interactions with field functionaries, citizens, and political representatives
- that reliably convey information on the actual implementation.

Though all these
are the physical ingredients of routine bureaucratic implementation, its actual
realization in a typical bureaucratic environment is unfortunately very
infrequent. It is commonplace that officials are severely handicapped by an
enfeebled administrative machinery, whose weaknesses are exacerbated by
inadequate, poorly trained, and dis-illusioned staff. Most often, they are left
to fend for themselves, in completely unknown terrain, with just a handful of
people for support.

The positive
deviance is due to the extraordinary level of direct personal involvement of
the official. It requires huge mental bandwidth for information processing and
monitoring, the ability and commitment for which is understandably possessed by
only a handful of very sincere and energetic officials. Their success is despite
grave deficiencies in state capability and a triumph over extreme adversity.
But this triumph is, most often, a pyrrhic victory. Reflecting the deeply
personal nature of such interventions, all such successes are most likely to be
short-lived, failing to outlive the officials themselves.

It is therefore no
surprise that mundane activities like running mid-day meal kitchens or distributing
old age pensions to beneficiaries or delivering ante-natal services to pregnant
women appear insurmountable systemic challenges. All these activities fail the
test of routinized impersonal administration, and require the dominant presence
of an exceptional bureaucrat.

Though the main
focus here is on the role of All India Service (AIS) officers, much the same
applies to other non-AIS officials of the state government. The successful
among them overcome much greater adversity than a similar AIS officer. The point of this post is as much to highlight why things sometimes appear to work in certain
places as to why its systemic replication may be difficult given our current
state capability.

A bureaucracy is
an impersonal rules-based organization of a group of people who work together
to achieve certain defined outcomes. Bureaucracies therefore have to work on their
systemic strengths rather than the personal initiative of individual
bureaucrats. A capable bureaucracy is one which delivers outcomes when
administered by the average bureaucrat, rather than being reliant on the serendipitous
presence of an exceptional bureaucrat. The typical Indian bureaucracy, at all
levels, is most likely to end up short on this test.

1 comment:

What about the role of transfers? Periodic transfers at various levels before the officials become entrenched with local forces may help I think if housing, schooling for children etc. are taken care of. Possibly out of the state transfers too. Perhaps, the role of judiciary can de discussed too. Thanks.